St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-05-21
MINNEAPOLIS JUDGES.
The Arguments in the Municipal
Court Case.

Inc arguments III the MunIcipal
Court Case.
The hearing of the arguments in the
Minneapolis municipal court case was
had in the supreme court yesterday be-
fore Judges Gilfillan, Mitchell, Wander
burg and Dickinson, coming upon the
application of A. N. eJordan and r. l..
Penny for writ of quo warranto COM
polling Judges Bailey and MahOney to
show by what right they hold
the seats of special judges of
the municipal court, to the exclusion of
the REALTORS, who were duly elected the
first Tuesday in April. Attorney Gen
eral Clapp, previous to the opening.
filed his written consent that the writ
of quo warrantO should Issue, which
had the effect of expediting matters and
bringing the arguments directly upon
the merits of the case. A. D. Smith
made the statement for the re-
laters, which briefly was that
the municipal court act of 1885
was unconstitutional in that it extended
the terms of the present incumbents
two years longer than the term which
they were elected to serve, which ex-
pired April 5, 1887: that at the regular
election the REALTORS were duly elected
and received certificates of election, etc.
G. III. Belder, for the respondents. fol-
lowed, claiming that the law of 1888
made provision for the interim between
1887 and 1889, when the election is to
be held, according to the act of 1885
providing for future elections. The act
of 1885 repealed the act of 1888, which
authorized the election in 1887, and
H. Benton next delivered an exhausted
argument for the REALTORS, which COW
cred all the points of that side.
He held that an act which as
Sumed to do away with the
right to hold an election for an elective
Office must be constitutional if the con-
Stitution secures to the people the right
to elect judge once in seven wears.
The legislature might provide for an
election for one year and then appoint
for the remaining six if an election has
filled an Office for the time prescribed
by the legislature. The legislature
to lengthen the term' must provide for
an election to fill the additional term.
The design of the ''hold over" clause of
the act of 1888 was simply to assure that
one officer should directly succeed an
other. Mr.. Benton made the addition
point in regard to Judge MahOney, that
while he was elected special Judge.
the legislature had afterwards
so enlarged the duties of this
Office that he became in fact the Judge
of the municipal court, thus creating a
new Office which he never was elected
to fill. In the afternoon the argument
continued, Judge Best, for the respond
ents, claiming their right to hold office
under the ''hOld Over' clause until sue
cessor had been elected and qualified in
1889, as the term expired April 5, 1887.
Judge Shaw, also for the respondents,
claimed that, although the attorney
general had given his written consent,
the issuance of the writ of quo warranto
it could not issue nor could information
be filed except upon showing that the
REALTORS were entitled to the office.
Gordon E. Cole made the closing plea
for the REALTORS, and reviewed the
arguments of both sides at
length. He was very emphatic
in his declarations, and closed by say
ing: eff, under the clause of the act of
1888 providing for the present judges
holding over until their successors are
elected and qualified, the present
judges are permitted to hold until 1889,
it will be a palpable fraud and a clear
infringement upon the rights of the
people, as declared by the constitution
of the state" The court took the argu-
merts under consideration.